Could someone here speak of the influence/position of theosophy or anthroposophy in relation to panentheism?
Â
There seems to be a trend of western theologians looking to the east for new ideas, which are consistent, though sometimes obviously quite alien categorically, with their western Christian roots. When I spoke with Arthur Peacocke about 'evolution,' the real sticking point was the field of psychology (andÂ as a resultÂ his philosophy ofÂ anthropos reflected this). He didn't seem to come full circle with his conception of humanity as created in the image of God - that is, in a sense that this had any significant import on 'science' as he preached it.
Â
As it appears, the pressure of 'process philosophy' still reigns supreme over panentheism, though, as George notes, this does not mean a panentheist is necessarily a 'process theologian,'Â the latter whichÂ carries a prejorative label in the opinion of most western Christians. (As an aside, George has not been defending, but it seems in a way protecting process theology, e.g. saying that Christians can be panentheists, while I am instead challenging process philosophy, A.N. Whitehead et al. via the concept of 'evolution' in human-social thought.) One needn't hold an opinion of ideas 'going west' to acknowledge that 'process theology' is of a particularly western, american origin (cf. Hartshorne, Cobb Jr., Griffin).

That Providence is no longer a relevant/popular concept in human-social thought is evidenced byÂ its lack of citations in scientific publications. Nevertheless, Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in it and hold a world majority among citizens, if not among academic scientists. The view of some IDists, that Providence is 'not hidden,' but rather visible (i.e. capitalised Intelligence and Design), and I might add, audible, challenges the notion that science cannot approach the divine with open eyes, ears and hearts. ThisÂ need neither be a throwback to Newton or Paley,Â but instead could include those forward-aspiringÂ scientifically-minded Christians who would feign from defending a 'spiritual science' of the Steiner mould, yet who would welcome a view that embraces a beyond-scientific reference point that helps 'put science in its place' as merely one type of knowledge among many, and thus notably less significant than the Enlightenment mantle of
Science with a capital 'S' would indicate. In any case, the importance of metaphysics and philosophy looms large, though it would seem a rare inclusion in the N. American 'science and religion' landscape (those such as C. Taylor excepted).
Â
Folks, this is why I often repeat the call for reflexivity (and 'thinking differently'); not to 'lower' the meaning of 'science' but to help put it in aÂ context of what role Providence has in the Academy, which absolutely demands integration of natural sciences with social sciences and humanities. It is the holistic perspective which is being choked by disciplinary fragmentation and hyper-specialisation, for example, which demands 'age of earth' and 'origin of humanity' and 'life from non-life' be decided authoritatively before any 'progress' can be made in scientific and human (anthropic) understanding.
Â
Gregory Arago
Â
â€œHe [or she] who calls what has vanished back again into being, enjoys a bliss like that of creating.â€